ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026
Change in practice patterns over time for endocrine therapy and radiation therapy in women with breast cancer age 65 and older.
Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn 2017, the National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) recommended omitting radiation therapy (RT) for women aged 70 + with stage 1, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after lumpectomy. However, the optimal treatment remains uncertain given challenges with delivering endocrine therapy (ET) and RT.
methodsFemales with hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, clinically node negative breast cancer aged 65 + diagnosed 2012-2021 who underwent lumpectomy with or without axillary surgery at a single institution were included. The treatment groups of ET only, RT only, both ET and RT (ET/RT), and neither ET nor RT were compared by patient age, year of diagnosis, and recurrence rates. Fisher's Exact Test was used to compare treatment groups, and competing risk analysis was used to examine recurrence rates.
resultsOf 383 patients analyzed, 28% received ET only, 8% RT only, 53% ET/RT, and 10% neither ET nor RT. Over time, fewer participants received ET/RT or RT alone and more participants received ET alone or neither ET nor RT (p=.006). Compared to those treated with ET/RT, those treated with neither ET nor RT (hazard ratio [HR] 10.60 [95% CI 4.13-27.21]) and with ET alone (HR 3.02 [95% CI 1.28-7.16]) had higher risk of disease recurrence.
conclusionsFewer participants received ET/RT or RT alone after the NCCN guideline publication. However, these cohorts had lower recurrence risks than those treated with ET only and neither ET nor RT. These results support consideration of larger prospective studies evaluating RT alone following lumpectomy in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.